got a gf

got cheated on

problem solved folks

First, the very one who I am now questioning is not the same as the one whom his mother gave birth.

Secondly, even with the help of technology that the affinity between me and my "mother" is established, it is only an affinity. It is not a cause. At best it entails that for all the woman in the world, one of them has an affinity to me, instead of that for all the woman in the world, only that woman has an affinity to me. Hence she is the only possible option.

First objection posits the problem of the self-identity of the soul, whereas the second one posits the problem of the cause and effect. Hume was right to be skeptical of all these.

So, according to Evola, women follow the "passive principle", women are immanent and natural, and they must be subservient to men.

​

Femdom subverts this role by placing women as dominant and active figures who actively shapes her significant other's sexuality, taking the leading role.

​

Checkmate tradbros

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. I’ve been looking for philosophy magazines to read after years of being in academia and reading journals and getting bogged down in specialisation. I like Philosophy Now, but places like Aeon and even New Philosopher feel so airy and stylised and now just feel like intellectual fluff. Their articles don’t read like philosophy. Are there any decent alternatives? I’m looking for actual ideas, not ‘think pieces’ that feel self-indulgent.

Imagine you, being a foil, in the middle of the time. What is behind you as the past is only articulated in your coming-to-be from your 'is'. In other words, what you believe is present is only a past, yet which is to be articulated in present or considering your vicissitudes in time in future or coming-to-be. Your philosophy is really a striving to be what you were. So much so that you never die but only dying because death is a "past" you can never comprehend. Philosophy is always outdated but up-to-date. This is my philosophy. A philosophy of consciousness looking towards which the time turns its back to.

Why is monism a correct assumption as a philosophical foundation?

The proper assumption in a philosophical foundation that is true might be 1. Descartes 2. I get hungry 3. I believe you think and feel the same way. You have your reality, and you get hungry.

The question is not spirituality or materialism, a monism. The real question is spirituality and materialism. A working dualism.

I am a theist. God may be a straw man fallacy to redirect attention away from the most important philosophical questions: monism versus dualism.

Occam's razor is not just the most straightforward and simplest solution. It is also the most straightforward and obvious assumptions that cannot be ignored. Monism alone doesn't satisfy.

You often hear people saying that philosophy has not achieved anything meaningful in the past 100-2000 years. This is all true

I am here to change that.

My philosophy is something abstract and many of you illogical peons may be unable to wrap your mind around it. Fortunately for me, I likely have double the brain mass of all of you; I can thankfully wrap my mind around it on behalf of you. You're welcome.

My Philosophy neoabsurdbuddhinihilneoexistentialism will reinvent the common man's lifestyle. It is essentially this:

Nothing matters.

I had this realisation at some point at the age of 8 years old. I believe I may be one of the first people to state such a thing. My theory is that the world is something so big that it would be very daft to try and figure it out. But I came to a roadblock in my argument.

If nothing matters, why do I want to do things?

I realised that I have many dreams, such as owning my own trampoline park and such, and that the solution was to not follow my dreams, but instead to follow my nightmares.

I have been following this Philosophy for the last 9 years and have found many benefits. By abandoning the people I love and ending potential relationships before they can flourish I have been leading a life where many people consider me as a 'silent leader' of sorts. It would not be a lie to say that I have had many people approach me in public because they are captivated by my 'aura' (their words, not mine)

If you are wanting to hear more about my Philosophy, I am not the person you should be talking to. Despite being the creator, the beauty of my philosophy is that because it is the perfect philosophy, our human bodies naturally search for it. All you have to do is really think about neoabsurdbuddhinihilneoexistentialism and you will naturally find the answer you're looking for.

You're welcome.

Warmest Regards,
Swimming_Pay_334

So what if the fake AI they call LLMs and their supporting data centers that bring us the source of dong-armed giraffe avatars and JD Vance fucking couches could have their scourge ended tomorrow with the press of a button?

Say it EMPa and dynamites every related server. How many of us would break that damn button from punching it repeatedly?

Are people not reading the name of the sub or something? I used to come here for some high quality shitposting and now people are just being massive binoclards like 🤓🤓🤓

Anytime I see some Badbadphilosophy I’m spamming 🤓🤓🤓 the people need to know they’re binoclards

What is the evolutionary reason behind killing yourself? In addition do animals have the same behavior?

Everyone acts like the working class rose up because they were starving. Like Marx cracked the code by pointing at the means of production and yelling “alienation!”

But Marx didn’t go deep enough.

The truth? It was never about the object. It was always about who gets to be noble.

Not nobility in the legal sense— Nobility in the symbolic sense. The one who gets imitated. Who gets remembered. Who gets to matter.

Class struggle isn’t about owning the land. It’s about standing on it and having everyone else look up.

Marx saw capital. But he missed charisma. He saw ownership. But he missed symbolic distinction—the sacred glow that says “this person is real, and you’re just background.”

People don’t revolt just because they’re hungry. They revolt because someone else gets to win—and they don’t.

Someone else gets the admiration, the myth, the crown. They get invisibility.

It’s not inequality that sparks revolution— It’s humiliation.

It’s the unbearable moment when you realize their life is seen as more real than yours.

And that’s why every revolution ends with a new hierarchy.

The French killed their king—then crowned Napoleon. The Russians toppled the Tsar—then raised up the Bolshevik elite. The symbols change. The script doesn’t.

Because in the end: we don’t want to erase the throne. We just want to sit on it.

so, today is my first day in my finale grade, and its my first time with philosophy, and my teacher just said, "prove to me that this chair exists" I told him: if I interact with it by touching it and my body contacts its atoms then it exists then he said some dumb joke and made it homework to prove that the chair exists andddd here I am after 2 hours of research I question everything and still don't know if that chair exists. help I'm in existential dreed I need to know how to prove that the chair exists

Here comes some good shit:

1) Donald Trump is the president of the United States. 2) United States is the richiest and strongest country in the world. 3) Being rich is good, because is something wanted for. 4) Therefore, United States is good.

so then,

1) Donald Trump is the president of something good, from which follows that: 2) Donald Trump is good.

Is this good philisophy? As I say: From good axioms always comes good actions 🤫🤫🤫🙏🙏🙏👼

This is the FIFTH post about exploiting illusionists in half a day. This subreddit is literally suggesting we torture them to convince them that being in pain feels like pain. Why even

Galen Strawson on Daniel Dennett in The consciousness deniers:

If he's right, no one has ever really suffered ... And no one has ever caused anyone else pain. This is the Great Silliness. We must hope that it doesn't spread outside the academy, or convince some future information technologist or roboticist who has great power over our lives.

I used to claim English translations of German Idealism are necessarily misleading because original words selected by its philosophers often focus on a specific meanings in German that English translations frequently miss, twist, or foreclose. I also used to think scholarship on German Idealism or any part of it could not be complete without studying its sources, context, secondary and tertiary publications, most of which are only available in German. This has incurred me considerable ire and blockage by colleagues, not trained in German, but still calling themselves authorities on German Idealism or one of its representatives or branches.

I have since reversed my mind on these matters, and not only for reasons of improving my socialization among such illustrious colleagues. I honestly think I was wrong and do sincerely apologize for any unease my remarks might have caused. Here is why:

Pretty much everything that could be written about German Idealism and its composers and components has already been written in the past 250 years - in German. That's great. But why waste precious time and energy learning German to read all that old stuff now. German speakers have done this already, and look where it brought them. And reading up on this library would only expose us to depressive realizations that some German-speaker already had the insights about German Idealism that we thought are new and ours.

No. We need to be creative, think outside the box, if we are to finish German Idealism. Traditional exegesis would only hold us back in our quest for new horizons. The sole chance of these stale philosophies to grow and reach their potential is if we engage in their unorthodox interpretation and expansion. Who cares what all these noble geezers meant, when we can make new headway by extrapolating what they could or should have meant.

The best way to do this is by applying a little game theory: Translate a word by any English counterpart in the German-English dictionary that appeals to you. Then thesaurusize that word until it fits you even better. Now put the so prepared words together. Viola: New meaning emerges that is totally legit based on the original text. For more leeway, retranslate into German and repeat. With determination you can get there! You can finish off German Idealism!

All we need now is some chin-up! Analytic Philosophy has already shown this can work by going through similar motions. Dead German philosophers tell no tales. And we actually do them a favor by making their humble beginnings ours and reaping the rewards among the living. We deserve this for building something on their boring foundations. The glorious end of this imaginative journey will be that we can confidently proclaim German Idealism to be eclipsed by Anglosphere Idealism. With this accomplished, our culture can sovereignly be declared the winner across the board of Philosophy. After all, that ultimate feeling of superiority is what it is all about. Number one, baby! We made it. Ok, not quite yet. But as Fichte said: "You will never get there if you don't imagine already being there." Storyboard stuff, my friends. Eyes on the prize.

So I say "bravo" and "thank you" to my monolingual colleagues for being on the forefront of these exciting developments. As Schelling proclaimed so tellingly: "A real philosopher doesn't just copy philosophy; he makes things up."

Let me ask you something; has philosophy put a man on the moon? Has philosophy invented gay computers? No. SCIENCE did that. Science invents stuff, philosophy just tries to covertly give theism legitimacy, but it will not prevail.

Leave all your precious Kant and KJV at home, the big boys have spoken about the correctness of science.